Bush more popular than Congress?!?!

Bush testing out a plug-in hybrid vehicle

George Bush is unpopular. That's no secret. According to the most recent Gallup Poll, Bush's approval rating is holding steady at about 33 percent. This low approval rating led many to believe that the unpopular President helped lead to a Democrat-controlled Congress.

But is that the real story?

According to the same Gallup poll, Congress has an approval rating of just 29 percent. Congress is even less popular than the President?

I think Democrats better wake up, as better Republicans. Ultimately, Democrats probably won control of Congress simply because they weren't Republicans - that's it. It was a vote for change that gave Democrats control of Congress.

Yet, has anything really changed? Certainly, the gross, unproductive partisanship of Congress has not changed, and nothing is being accomplished. Even worse, it is possible that essentially nothing will be accomplished until early 2008 - at best.

Perhaps in 2008, when America again votes for change, it shouldn't be limited to replacing Democrats with Republicans or vice versa. Instead, perhaps EVERY incumbent should be replaced?! Perhaps EVERY incumbent should be replaced with an Independent candidate?

Now that would be a change. Seriously, could it get any worse? When the best that is accomplished is, well, nothing, can it really get any worse?

Register to vote. Take a stand for change in 2008.

Rate the stupidity of liberal leaders: Just how stupid are they?

I just read a refreshing article in the Los Angeles Times, Head-in-the-Sand Liberals, which I'm happy to report is one of the most talked about articles printed by the Los Angeles Times. Finally, someone - in a very nice fashion - is challenging the idiotic leadership of the liberal party.

I realized how much I hated liberals one day before the Iraq War. I was walking down Lake St. in Pasadena to go grab some lunch, and protestors were waving "No Blood for oil" signs up and down the street. I thought, well, what you should be saying is, "No blood for gas guzzlers".

Of course, these liberals couldn't say that when many of them drive gas-guzzlers.

Later that day I was driving home and I drove through South Pasadena, a very rich community in the Los Angeles area, and in front of me a brand new Jaguar sported the bumper sticker, "Jesus was a liberal."

I was so angry I wanted to ram into that Jaguar.

Yeah, Jesus would have been a Jaguar-driving liberal living in a multi-million dollar home in South Pasadena. Are liberals really that idiotic, I wondered?

Well, yes they are according to this excellent article by Sam Harris - a self-proclaimed liberal.

"I don't know how many more engineers and architects need to blow themselves up, fly planes into buildings or saw the heads off of journalists before this fantasy will dissipate. The truth is that there is every reason to believe that a terrifying number of the world's Muslims now view all political and moral questions in terms of their affiliation with Islam. This leads them to rally to the cause of other Muslims no matter how sociopathic their behavior. This benighted religious solidarity may be the greatest problem facing civilization and yet it is regularly misconstrued, ignored or obfuscated by liberals."

For example, Muslims are now calling for the death of the Pope and have almost assuredly killed an innocent nun who spent her life helping poor people.

"you and the West are doomed as you can see from the defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere. ... We will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose head tax, then the only thing acceptable is a conversion (to Islam) or (killed by) the sword." (more)

I think Bush has been a terrible leader, yet I think his boldest and greatest move was attacking Afghanistan and Iraq. We DID take this Jihad back to the Middle East. Yet, Bush has handled Iraq horribly in terms of any sort of long term planning.

Yet the liberal stance is, the war was wrong. America IS evil, and Democrats will fix the problem.

Oh yeah? OK. So now even the Pope is a puppet of Bush, now the Pope and all non-Islamic religions are also puppets of the Bush administration?

Liberals are right in complaining about the Bush handling of Iraq, of 9/11, but they are far more wrong in their beliefs about the state of the world, terrorism, and Islam.

Islamic extremists believe it is O.K. to kill non-Muslims and to die killing non-Muslims. These people are so much better than the Pope, than Tony Blair, than George Bush?

Don't liberals believe in freedom of and FROM religion - even Islam? That's what I believe and sadly I feel more aligned with conservative, red neck, ignorant Republicans than I do with Democrats.

Either Democrats need to wake up and get the neo-facist liberal extremists out of their party leadership, or more Democrats need to vote against both parties.

Many Democrats are right and in claiming Republicans are hurting America, unfortunately, many Democrats are causing just as much or more hurt than the Republican Party.

Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House: Let's hope not

If Democrats take back control of Congress, then Nancy Pelosi will probably be the Speaker of the House. Will that be good for America?

Before we answer that question, let's discuss two issues.

First, what is the essence of Democracy? Is it one person one vote? If so, why does that mean anything? Isn't it really that Democracy, at its best, leads to consensus? That's why one person, one vote is so important, because consensus makes it hard for one person, one party, one way of thinking to dominate all aspects of American political life?

Let's face it, very rarely, if ever, does one person, one way of thinking, offer the answers to everything.

Second, so social security is in PERFECT shape? Every single person alive today has NOTHING to worry about when it comes to social security? When we all retire, we will all EASILY be able to live off of social security, right?

I ask the second question, because that is what Nancy Pelosi forced all Democrats to agree upon when George Bush said social security was flawed.

So, why do you then have a pension plan, a 401k plan? Why do Democrat-controlled Unions demand such great health care and pension plans for members if social security is so PERFECT?

In reality, relying on social security in retirement will lead to only one thing for most Americans: the poor house.

The truth is, social security is VERY flawed. Those of us in our 20s, 30s and 40s will almost certainly face serious shortages when it comes to social security. Yet, Nancy tells us there is NO problem.

Why?

Because George Bush, vis-a-vis Republicans, must fail at everything so that Democrats can control America's Democracy. Partisanship, not consensus, rules the world of Nancy Pelosi and the leaders of the Democrat Party. Unfortunately, partisanship also rules the world of the Republican Party.

Both parties are far more focused on raising money and on fighting the other side, than on consensus - the essence of Democracy.

Of course, multi-millionaires, such as Mrs. Pelosi and many other members of Congress, don't have to worry about social security - EVER.

Instead, they worry about POWER and the CONTROL of America's Democracy.

George Bush has not been a great President, but Congress - on both sides of the aisle - has been just as bad, if not worse.

America is a divided country. We speak different languages, we practice different forms of religion or no religion, and we have different political views on many different issues. This isn't bad, this is good. The opposite is the Taliban, it's facist Germany.

Why can't Mrs. Pelosi and the leaders of both parties respect these differing views? Why do they act more like facists than leaders of Democracy?

What happens if Mrs. Pelosi wins the role of Speaker, but accomplishes nothing because of extreme partisanship? Sure there is room for the likes of Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Tom Delay in politics, but on the fringes of the party, not in a leadership role.

Ultimately, in order for a divided America to achieve great things, concensus will be required.

What caused the 9/11 terrorist attacks?

So Moveon.org is launching an anti-war vigil across the U.S.

What a joke.

First, who is Moveon.org going to endorse in 2008? Every major Democratic candidate does not advocate immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Second, almost everyone with a brain - even if against the war - realizes that an abrupt withdrawal would most certainly cause more deaths in Iraq and result in greater harm to the free world.

I guess it's sort of like Clinton's stance on Rwanda. Doing nothing is safer and cleaner for America, even if it means millions of Africans die.

Moveon.org seems to believe that all the world's problems are the result of George Bush. Fine. So how did Bush cause 9/11?

Let's not forget, the World Trade Centers were first attacked during the Clinton administration. Had the first attack succeeded, the death toll would have been far greater than the second attack. Afterwards, Bin Laden launched several attacks against U.S. interests and forces while planning the second World Trade Center attack - all on Clinton's watch. Did the seers in the Islamic revolution know George Bush was about to become President years before he was elected?

What caused 9/11?

Cindy Sheehan, the Crawford protestor has called Bush the greatest terrorist in the World and demanded that Israel withdraw from Palestine. What made this idiot a world affairs expert? Many Muslims - not just Islamic terrorists - hate Israel and do not want two independent states, they want the end of Israel, PERIOD. How does Sheehan plan to deal with this, like Rwanda? More important, Bill Clinton has stated that, in hindsight, his lack of success in dealing with the Israeli - Palestinian situation was his greatest failure.

Again, what caused 9/11?

I say it's oil and I wonder how many anti-war advocates drive SUVs, BMWs, and other foreign-oil guzzling vehicles. To those protestors, I say shut the F_ _ _ up! If you want to do something, start with your own actions. To those protestors that don't gas-guzzle and are part of the vigil, I respect you, but I wonder if you really believe that an immediate withdrawal will really result in a better world?

If you are a protestor that is also against gas-guzzling, remember one thing. Detroit and American automaker inefficiency are protected by Democrats and Republicans. Since 9/11 Democrats, as a party, could have made foreign oil dependency the American, the anti-war, issue. THEY DID NOT! Nor did Moveon.org. They don't want to deal with the real issues, just the issues that make money.

Unfortunately, too many Democrats, like the majority of Republicans, choose special interests, rather than the people's interests. Don't believe the Moveon.org hype. Moveon.org doesn't care about half the country's citizens - they - maybe you - are the enemy. The Democratic party is not the answer, nor is the Repulican party, it's up to us, the people. In reality, those that seek to divide us, rather than unite us, are the real enemy.

Are GM and Ford responsible for the 911 attacks?

"We're hooked on oil from the Middle East, which is a national security problem and an economic security problem," George Bush acknowledged while defending his stance against the Kyoto protocol.

Yet America still can't do anything about foreign oil dependency, but Brazil could? That's technological leadership.

When push comes to shove, American automakers are dependent upon America's foreign oil dependency. While GM's Bob Lutz is gloating about June's light truck sales - further extending America's dependence upon foreign oil - terrorists are making plans to disrupt the oil supply. (More)

Dem Leaders Question Kerry's $15 million nest egg

According to a CNN article, "Democrats are questioning why he sat on so much money that could have helped him defeat George Bush or helped down-ballot races, many of which could have gone our way with a few more million dollars," said Donna Brazile, campaign manager for Al Gore's 2000 presidential race.

While Kerry is yet to respond, the move is almost certain to impact the 2008 election.

Additionally, Kerry has another $7 million "on hand in a legal and accounting compliance fund that he could use for legal expenses in a 2008 campaign."

Just a little a pocket change to the Two-Party System.

For the complete article, click here.

Click here to register to vote.

Al Gore, the bore, at it again.

According to a developing Drudg Report Story, Al Gore in a speech on Thursday, "will also urge the broadcast media to further resist Administration efforts to manipulate and intimidate them, to fearlessly report the fact that there is no Al Qaeda/Saddam collaborative relationship, as the 9/11 Commission staff report has concluded."

What? Intelligence during his own tenure as VP, officially documented, claims otherwise. There is absolute proof that Al Qaeda, even Bin Laden himself, met with the Iraqi diplomats. Al Qaeda exists only as terrorist organization, if they weren't discussing terrorism, what were the discussing? The fact is we just don't know, but it seems pretty obvious they weren't discussing humanitarianism.

Additionally, George Bush didn't create 911, and the current Iraq war wouldn't exist without 911. The 911 plan was in place and moving forward during the reign of Al Gore's boss. These terrorists declared war on the U.S. long before the Bush Administration. Further, during the Clinton/Gore years what was done to make the Middle East better? What was done to prevent the kinds of anger and hate that caused the planning and execution of 911?

Clinton and Gore ruled during the Internet boom, a time of great domestic stability and wealth, yet in the Middle East we were hated more and more. Where was the diplomacy then? The Art of War is preventing War, and the Clinton/Gore Administration failed, horribly.

When it comes to Iraq and terrorism, the Democrats have no more moral authority than Republicans. During one of the biggest economic booms in U.S. history, what was ultimately accomplished by the Clinton/Gore Administration? Did the world become a better place,did the US become a safer place? No, Al Qaeda and Middle East frustration regarding the U.S. position on Palestine resulted in 911.

Of course, in hindsight how could Clinton/Gore know what was coming? It's obvious that the Intelligence community wasn't very intelligent, just as we are finding out in Iraq. If Iraq is a political issue, it's an issue that demonstrates the current ineffectiveness of the current American political system. Both parties have lost moral authority not only with the world, but with 50% of the American population.

The blame game is the losers game. This country needs leaders, not finger-pointers. In reality only about 20% of the American population truly endorses either party. Neither party speaks for the people, only for themselves.

The only thing that is going to change this is citizen participation. Only significantly increased voter participation can put a kink in the political machine. So, get out and vote. If your excuse is I don't like Bush or Kerry, or either party, then vote for Nader, or write somebody in. Just prove you care and that you are watching.